other_life
bioconfused
the autistic temperament
And yet it was people who fit this description who delivered us so many high reaching art works throughout history. The more society pushes out these pathologies the more boring and tame the world of art becomes. Talk about catch 22.
At the start of the thread I had an 'artistic temperament', two pages in and it's a pathology. I don't like the direction this thread is headed in...
but of course now no one is a fundamentalist in this sense anyways, so it's hard to compare. idk, maybe I'm missing your point by focusing on judgments of other people's works instead of self-belief. but to me there's a difference between discarding things that don't interest you and being a fundamentalist.The value of art depends on the values of the art critic.
Most art is born as imitation, not innovation.
The critic, not the artist, is the one who defines innovation, and rates it.
The artist is merely a vehicle for the aesthetic/ideology of the critic.
The critic is the real artist.
At the start of the thread I had an 'artistic temperament', two pages in and it's a pathology. I don't like the direction this thread is headed in...
funny, I'd have put it completely the other way around. critics are the ones obsessed with setting aside doubt and branding things as THE GREATEST or WORST. Artists might do that as far as it helps them narrow down a path for their own work (hence the Nabokov quote?), but just look at where each group expends energy: artists don't spend their time telling the world which art should and shouldn't be appreciated.
I know he's not exactly the most, uh, authoritative critic, but Piero Scaruffi has a quote that describes what seems like a common belief of critics (even if they wouldn't say it outright):
but of course now no one is a fundamentalist in this sense anyways, so it's hard to compare. idk, maybe I'm missing your point by focusing on judgments of other people's works instead of self-belief. but to me there's a difference between discarding things that don't interest you and being a fundamentalist.
seems pretty consistent with what I was saying that artists who take fundamentalist stances would tend to do so as critics/theorists. I was more thinking of them as roles—not really with specific people in mind.i dunno about that
Lot of artists / musicians / novelists have also been theorists, critics, pushers of a particular way of doing things
if you make music through free improvisation, your music completely disregards any conventional pre-arranged structure, but obviously there are other forms where that sort of structure is of the upmost importance—so free improvisation is in some sense a ‘fuck you’ to sonata form, fugues, pop songs etc., an enactment of the belief that their valued games of expectation are worthless. maybe a more obvious example is DIY punk type stuff: that you would do things that way implies that you think conventional production value is a waste of time, or even actively musically bad. maybe making IDM implies that you don’t care about collective experiences, a broader subculture, etc.“This music is here in opposition to other music. It doesn't all co-exist together nicely. The fact that I have chosen to do this implies that I don't value what you're doing over there. My activity calls into questions the value of your activity. This is what informs our musical thinking and decision making."
I was going to make a point along those lines last night, that artists tell the world what is and isn't good by what they choose to create themselves and that plenty of art is at least partly a rebuttal to or rejection of something else.
I was going to make a point along those lines last night, that artists tell the world what is and isn't good by what they choose to create themselves and that plenty of art is at least partly a rebuttal to or rejection of something else.